ITAT Ahmedabad excused non-compliance due to CA’s failure, remanding the case for verification of additional evidence related to cash deposits and investments.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that disallowance of interest expense by treating the same as unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Income Tax Act needs re-verification. Accordingly, matter send back to the file of jurisdictional AO.
ITAT Allahabad held that on account of inadvertent error in reporting by the tax auditor in form 3 CD this addition has been made while framing the assessment order u/s 143(1) by CPC, Bangalore, which is system oriented. Thus, matter remanded back to the file of AO.
ITAT Mumbai held that passing of assessment order without mandatory service of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is unjustified. Accordingly, assessment order being passed sans serving notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, is liable to be quashed.
NCLAT Chennai held that failure to make payment as per repayment plan grants liberty to the creditor to initiate action under section 121 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Thus, action of creditors cannot be faulted.
Delhi High Court held that CBDT vide notification dated 12.05.2022 and 28.05.2022 has authorised ACIT / DCIT to act as prescribed income-tax authority for the purpose of issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that the TP assessment carried out by the TPO proceeded on the basis of incorrect appreciation of nature of services availed by the assessee from its AE. Thus, issue of determination of ALP of transactions with AE restored back to TPO.
The power to reassess can be invoked only on the basis of material that may be pertinent to a particular AY, that principle would pale into insignificance where the assessee fails to assert a change or a fundamental alteration of the facts which are asserted to have remained unaltered.
Delhi High Court held that interest under section 42 of Delhi Value Added Tax Act entitled to the petitioner as department has illegally retained the money of the petitioner for the long time.
ITAT Mumbai held that unreasoned order confirming addition passed ex-parte is against the principal of natural justice and hence the matter is restored back to CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
